Ok someone give me a reason why guns are legal.
 

Ok so me and my gf were talking about gun control and the point in owning guns whatsoever.

I just want to know what the legit uses of guns are and if they are really necessary.

What they were originally made for.
Hunting, defense, entertainment.

Yes they are necessary because I and many other citizens want to have them for these purposes.

This belongs in politics?

well maybe it ought to be in politics it can be moved if a mod would be so kind, im not knocking people who use guns i just want to know the legit purposes for owning them, although i'd saying owning a gun for entertainment is questionable :).

So yeah i agree hunting is an obvious one, i wouldnt say you need a gun for defense though.

If you ever went target shooting or plinking (with an open mind), you'd probably understand pretty quickly how you could own a gun for entertainment.

Other reasons are historical value, investment purposes, competition, exercise (see the writings of Thomas Jefferson for the explanation), etc.

As to defense, you may not need one, but there are folks out there that have a perceived need for a gun, and others that have a flat-out obvious need for a gun. Ask Lance Thomas about self-defense and firearms. Talk to anyone working armoured car service or armed security. Talk to anyone that lives an hour away from any other human soul, let alone a cop.

It's fairly easy to establish why guns are legal. It's much more fun to watch people argue why the internet should be legal.

I know a good way to answer this question.

Go to your walmart, buy a BB gun ... it's only about $25 and some BBs for $3. Go shoot at cans. After shooting them, if you see enjoyment in it ( as many, many , many , many people do) then you'll understand why guns are legitimate for having fun. If you don't see the fun, at least recognize that many people do enjoy shooting them.

a REALLY good reason to own a gun is because a population without guns is a population that can be easily controlled by the government.

if the population cannot defend themsleves then they are putting themselves at risk to be taken advantage of.

just look at some of histories meanest leaders (look at the obvious first of all, i.e Hitler, Mao) they took away the right to bear arms from their people before starting their massacres.

Good example, Boo.

"An armed society is a polite society"

IMHO, Guns are misunderstood and abused.

Guns are a tool:

- Personal protection from all vermin.

- To kill critters for eating.

- To keep enemies at bay or drive them off.

Unfortunately:

- Vermin and enemies also have guns.

- The NRA thinks we need machine guns for critters.

Fortunately:

- Because we can own them still applies.

Is there a way to rid the planet of guns?

Your use of the word "vermin" fills me with cold dread.
All I will say on this tired old topic is that guns are not tools. Guns are weapons. A tool is used to make something. Guns can only destroy.

Actually, a tool is anything that can complete a task. A person can be a tool (and often is). A gun is a tool. A thermonuclear device is a tool. None of these things is inherently bad or evil, because they require users. To steal a line from a bad movie, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

What about swords? A sword is 100% weapon, yet in today's world when people see swords most of them think either 'movie prop' or 'art piece.' Nobody actually thinks that someone might use it to eviscerate them.

And you should remember that personal weapons used to play a big part in society - people brought their daggers to the dining table, which is where our table knives eventually came from. Japanese samurai wore their swords at their sides at all times, and bumping into someone's sword with your own was grounds for a duel to the death. Do you think this is barbaric? It was custom. No more and no less civilized than anything we do today.

It would be naive to think that weapons are unnecessary for self defense. Laws are for the people that follow them - if you ban guns, you will make the law-abiding citizens easier targets for gun-toting criminals.

Thats one of my favorite quotes.

If I were a criminal wanting to break into a house, I would prefer that the occupants not possess guns. If I were a hopeful tyrant or dictator, I would prefer that citizens not possess guns. If I were an aggressor nation, I would prefer that the country I'm attacking not possess any firearms.

That's the reason we have guns. To thwart or hinder the plans of would-be dictators, agressors, or criminals.

Instead of posting such a request, perhaps you could maybe possibly exert some effort by using the search function? If, after searching, you still have no clue why guns would be legal, you could feel justified to ask.

I disagree. I live in a country where guns, though not illegal, are heavily controlled. People in cities don't own guns. Nobody owns assault rifles, save for the defense forces. Unless you're a cop, handguns are more or less unheard of. In fact, the only guns you commonly see are those carried by police officers and hunting rifles owned by farmers, who have a real need for them to control 'roos.

I don't know how many gun homocides we have here, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 20 a year, in the whole country.

The government finds us no easier to control than the US government finds its citizens. Just because we can't shoot people we don't like, doesn't mean we will blindly obey them.

I don't think it's an issue of government control where people blindly follow it, but rather that of a government that could easily exercise its tyranical will through force if the populace was unarmed. Firearms won't protect people from things they think they want from a government, but they can help prevent those things they know are really undesirable, like being killed. For instance, the Gestapo would have had a harder time rounding up the Jews if they had a way to effectively defend themselves.

Not really, jeebus.
A lot of you guys are armed. However, if the government went Handmaid's Tale on you and took over by military force, you'd still be down. Because even though you have guns, the military have bigger ones and they are very well trained in using them.

No, the answer to peoples' liberty is not giving them the ability to easily kill each other.

Besides which, you're assuming everyone has a gun, and everyone is willing to use it. I, for one, would honestly rather be taken by the Gestapo than kill any one of them.

Guns are legal because when the constitution was created, it was only because the population had access to guns that rebellion and popular control of the government was able to be achieved. Nowadays, it is kind of a moot point because even the largest militia armed with guns would not stand a chance rebelling against a modern technological army. Does this mean the second amendment should be repealed? Maybe. But I think there is definately an argument to be made for keeping guns legal out of respect for tradition and in memory of our heritage. However, if they become a problem on a domestic scale that seriously effects the populace than tradition must be set aside.

Re: Ok someone give me a reason why guns are legal.
 

Think that the gun issue in the USA can only be understood by non US citizens by referring to US's popular culture:

Lisa: Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

Homer: You couldn’t be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [pushing Lisa] Do you want that? [pushing her harder] Huh? Do you?

Lisa: [quietly indignant] No . . .

The first move by any rising dictator has always been to dearm the populace.

Doesn't seem to apply in the United States. Could you give examples of where it does work?

2Wolves

(yes I own weapons)

Ok so i'm british, and from my experience i have only seen guns in 2 places:-

1. In the arms of soldiers
2. In the arms of police officers (not usual patrolling officers, trained armed units)

I dont understand the logic that if you don't have a gun Hitler is going to come and sodomise you or that some burgler is somehow going to be able to tell and think you are an easy target.

Have you ever thought that criminals in the US may not carry guns if they didn't have such ready access to them?

I mean yes people over here use guns for hunting, and leisure activities i'll admit, even then it is strictly controlled. You cant even legally own a handgun here anymore, why? because some guy went into a junior school and shot up the place. It seemed logical that to stop something of the like happening again all handguns were banned, so why in what is arguably the home of school shootings (this is a little low i apologise) cant you guys see the need for greater controls?

The government can come take my weapons, out of my cold dead hands.

I was a "tool" for the US govenment for many years, being well trained in the effective use of the wares, I could probably put up a good fight against a government trying to force tyranny on me.

If I would take out 3 or 4 before they got me then I did my job.

Aside from that rant, I really do feel safer being armed and knowing I will use it.

The Iraqi's have guns too. Too many guns. Did that stop the US army from exercising its will (tyranical or not is a question for further debate) on the Iraqi people? Should the US allow the Iraqi's to have the right to bear arms ( they currently don't.) to defend themselves from the rampant crime there?

so do you think that here is a problem on the domestic scale that seriously affects the populace?

Reconmike, you've been in the military. How do you think the u.s. army would stack up against an undertrained and underarmed u.s. populace?

I like guns and own several, but I'm very glad I don't live in a society that feels they need to have guns to feel safe. My guns are for hunting and recreation (plinking, target shooting) and remain locked in my cabinet at all times.
I don't buy the "an armed society is a safe society" crap, but if that's what you grew up with I guess that's what you believe. I grew up in an unarmed society, and I never felt threatened or scared….I like it that way.

Parts of the US with concealed carry laws (aka you can have a gun on you) have less gun crime then similar areas without such laws. This has been talked about before on the boards, so you can do your own google searches :)

So less crime equates to a polite society? Wanna run that by me again?

2Wolves

I don't think they take data on politeness. Perhaps you would like to do a dissertation on the subject and you can get back to us. You can work out a scale for politeness, and the field work. Perhaps you could carry a visible fire arm and see if politeness increases.

I get many impressions of the differences between nationalities and cultures just by browsing these boards. Most here are American, and I am afraid politeness can't be considered a main trait with any of the Americans I have met here...

Sorry, that was rather rude.:p

Considering that you were the individual giving that saw props...............

2Wolves

I believe alot of factors would decide any outcome if this actually happened.

But the US military would have a huge advantage, but an under armed resistance could still make things difficult.

No matter how big the weapons, the fight would still have to be on the ground sometime, and if it happened in the US this country is way too big for the government to be able to hold it all.

It seems like I've said this a dozen times on an equal number of related threads, but I'll say it again: If the government were to take such steps that there is a large public rebellion, some trained military personel would join the rebellion and bring with them locations of armories and other supplies. They wouldn't remain underarmed and undertrained for very long, if anyone with any sense is running the show.

Thanks reconmike, that's always something i've been curious about.

Fortunately I know other people from Norway or else I would draw the same conclusion.

"Power stems from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Tze Tung


It is only logical that the citizen should be armed in the United States of America.

Sounds like a fun thread: conditions under which the US military might join a rebellion in the US. My personal opinion: Short of the president literally wiping his ass with the Constitution, you'll never see large-scale defections of active duty troops.

Isn't that the very definition of democracy?;)

It's not wise to say "never" (in bold, even) when such a hypothetical is just that -- hypothetical. I don't think that many of our men and women in uniform would be too keen on the idea of attacking other Americans, on US soil.

that's why I prefaced it with 'My personal opinion' :)

As for fighting other americans, at that point the label would no longer be 'other americans', but 'Traitors'. The psychological shift is significant.

1861

The Swiss are very polite, and very armed.
And so are Canadians.

Guns are legal cause the Bill of Rights says so.

For those of you who wonder sometimes if those of us who don't always comment are reading the thread, I thought I'd pop in to say yes, I'm reading the thread.
Carry on...

I have never owned a gun in my life. I have always been against guns, for myself. I am in favor of others owning a gun.... let me share a story about the only time in my 50 yrs that I shot a gun... I worked in an aluminum extrusion factory in the early 70’s. Some of the products we made were light poles and sail boat mass. When the product comes out of the die I had to shoot it with a 22 (that was mounted on the machine) to allow air in quickly so the tubes would not collapse. I almost protested to my foreman that I don’t like guns and want nothing to do with them. As I thought about it, I realized I was being an idiot. The gun was a necessary TOOL in order to get the job done. Yes a gun can be a tool. Thank you.

Hay Norwegians are rude as hell, but then again we seldom claim to be very polite. But I guess the rudeness has to be connected to our lack of guns.

Interesting thread so far...

My take on why it's okay for a reason why guns are legal is because it's okay for citizens to be responsible for themselves. I

n other words... even though the Citizenry often makes wrong decisions with guns; perhaps it's the one area that people are allowed to make mistakes.

Since the majority of gun deaths are by suicide. (Facts from here). -Perhaps people should be allowed to choose their demise -if they choose to do so. Hey I'm not for it but people should have power over their own destiny... and even other peoples too -(to a certain extent). Just let people decide their own destiny for once. Sorry if it's bad but it's their choice.

Well, legalizing suicide isn't really going to have any effect at all. It's not like you can punish people who do it. :)

Long term darwinism. Has to be a contributing factor.

(not quite jesting)

2Wolves

For me its hard to understand why people would want everyone to own a gun. Those statistics about children in the home 50times more likely to be killed by a gun owned by a family member than an intruder, or that more US citizens have been killed by thier own guns than any of the wars this century- to me is pretty telling. Socially the whole thing seems pretty crazy from where i stand.

No one wants "everyone" to own a gun, just the right for law-abiding citizens to own them. As it stands, any criminal can easily obtain just about any weapon of choice. They violate a dozen or more federal laws to do so, but hey, they are criminals. Enacting one or two more laws doesn't make it any more challenging.

I'm a good citizen. I vote and pay taxes. I exercise due prudence in storing and operating my firearms. Why should my guns be illegal?

I intend to purchase a handgun next weekend. My only motivation is that the anti-gun lobby in DC feels I should not have the right to do so. That's all the incentive I need.

Don't know if you've seen the crime statistics for DC, we are the nation's crime capital, and it seems that every night you hear on the news that some kid shot other kids outside of a high school.

I've never owned guns and living in DC I feel no need to, but I got an interesting perspective on the issue from a girl from Montana. She said that her family needed to have guns because a bear might come to their backyard and reak havoc. I believe gun control should be localized, and DC should have even more restrictions on owning guns.

The irony is of course, that the large urban areas with the most gun control (Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago) have the most gun related homicides.

This fact alone indicates to me that the answer is not in yet more regulation but somewhere else.

Gun related violence is simply violence and we need to look at the root cause and quit treating simptoms.

We can't cure the common cold, yet we still treat the symptoms.

That said, I don't think gun control will do any good because of the vast amount of firearms already existing in the states.

Yes, we do treat the simptoms and as most people know, the treatments are nothing more than things we do to make ourselves feel better while the cold works itself out.

http://www.therighter.com/articles/

I don't know if ths really fits, but it is an interesting article on the psyche of the anti-gun crowd.

As for why I believe firearms are legal, because it is a god given right, and the Bill of Rights prevents the government from taking it away. There are many legitimate uses for firearms not the least of which is self-defense. My firearms are used for hunting and, god forbid anyone take it into their head to invade my home, self-defense.

Currently I own a shotgun and a mini-14. Gasp, yes one of the dangerous so called assault weapons. Yes, the mini-14 is a military style rifle, but I have yet to find a more reliable and easy to use rifle. In fact it is probably less dangerous than ninety percent of the other rifles available for purchase, but the reliabilty is what I was looking for at the time. Within another six months I plan on adding a handgun to my collection. Why, because it fits a niche i my collection. Would you golf with only a driver and a putter? No, a golfer has a selection of clubs to pick the best one for the shot. Hunters similarly have a need for different weapons for different uses.

That statistic has been debunked years ago. It is nothing but unsubstantiated nonsence.

Why are gun legal? A better question is why should they be illegal? If you suggest that they might hurt people, I would say a lot of other things. Most gun owners are responsible with their guns, just like most people are responsible with whatever else they have that makes them happy but that could hurt someone. If I like guns and I don't bother you, then whats the problem?

And yet DC already has the most restrictive gun laws in the US. It hasn't worked out so well, has it.

Yeah, that'll work.

What really pisses me off about anti-gun people is they never grasp this simple truth:

Criminals will always have guns, no matter how many laws you throw at them there will always be a black market.

I'd like to throw in my own two cents here. We see that in Iraq, an average of one or two soldiers per day are killed. If we assume that the resistance there is as small as our officials say it is, I think it's safe to say that a much larger resistance force in a much larger country oculd inflict some serious damage against our own military if they turn against us.

I'd also like to think that if the Government issued an order to turn against the people of our country, a good number of soldiers would turn around and give their lives in defense of the people instead of corrupt officials.

A small suggestion: Take a large firearm and go downtown and about your regular business. I bet everyone you bump into will be exceedingly polite. For a while anyway.



The thoughts of the military turning on the populace. It is unconstitutional (Posse Comitatus), so the military would be breaking the law, which, under the UMCJ, they are all singularly liable for court martial for.

I understand the arguments, but I still think that the idea that the average citizen has a right to own deadly weapons is slightly barbarous. The idea that its a god-given right to own firearms is a bit silly.

But I really can't condemn societies who want to live like that, I just wouldn't feel safe there. Increasing the gun supply doesn't change anything about society, it just makes killing easier. If the citizenry can have guns to protect against the depredations of a tyrannical government, then why can't they possess tanks or planes or nuclear weapons either? Surely Big Government (TM) would be less inclined to repeal the Constitution if the Podunk 43rd Militia were training with F-22s and Bradley tanks. I don't see the distinction.

Each to his own, I suppose. Lets just say that the proliferation of guns is one of the many reasons why I would not want to live in the USA, ever. Thank God for countries with draconian gun laws.

Bottom line, bad guy will always be able to get guns, they don't care for guns laws.

A different bottom line is that you don't have to be a bad guy to do violence against the innocent with firearms. The United States is the most heavily policed, on a per capita basis, society ever known and still the love of violence for its own sake increases.

2Wolves

So, if restricting guns only leads to an increase in violence, how do many of the gun supporters here account for the rediculously high murder rate in the US? If everyone having a gun makes us safer, why isn't the US the safest place in the world?

If guns were harder to come by, how much longer would a criminal be able to pick up a cheap gun on the black maket? Wouldn't fewer guns mean a drastic increase in the price of an illegal firearm? Would your average criminal really be able to obtain one as easily?

As a Canadian who's never seen anyone but a cop with a gun in this country, I'm curious as to what Americans believe is the cause for the seriously high gun homicide rate in the US.

SLM3

becuase, we have laws, and those laws protect our freedom, safety, etc....

Now using the power of law (by the way this is gonna make sense)

VCRs were gonna be made illegal but a federal judge ruled that if a device has one single use which is not illegal the fact that it can be used illegally can not disqualify that device from use

anyway violent crimes have risen in all countries where people could not carry a pistol

*edited by someone calmer*

"VCRs were gonna be made illegal but a federal judge ruled that if a device has one single use which is not illegal the fact that it can be used illegally can not disqualify that device from use "

So Tommy Chong's bong conviction, since a bong can be used for tobacco, should be thrown out. Correct?

2Wolves

yeppers

PS I apoligize for the personal attack, that is the way i talk with my life long friends and i did not realize that it would offend people

http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/moms_attack.htm

Sorry, I had to throw this into the mix. Granted it is a very biased piece, it has some majorly scary statistics. Perhaps we should license people to have children before we start licensing people for firearms.

You want to make guns Illegal. Ok..

Look up the crime rates for England after they outlawed guns, its increased greatly (dont have sites atm but they're out there).

You want to live in a place where only criminals have guns?

Yes kids playing around with gun get killed. But my 3 year old cousin was paralized when a box fell from a high shelf. Are you going to outlaw high shelves? Its a horrible tragedy but life is full of dangers.

And what you underestimate about the US Military is they vow allegience to the Consitution. Not a person, if any government head shit on the Constitution the military would NOT follow him. But just in case we as the populace reserve the right to bear arms.

Yeah, I'm pro-gun, I'm from Texas where its legal to walk in to a courthouse with a gun. Its not the gun thats the problem its the person behind it. Cars kill many many more poeple than guns do, outlaw them?

So why isn't the US the safest place in the world?


SLM3

Ever think gun crime in the uk rose after guns were made illegal because of the simple fact that owning a gun is classed as a gun crime?

The other countries probably has even more guns, they just hide them better. I'll have to admit it: we here in Norway are setting you up. We are all armed to the teeth, that's the secret.

Epie,
Who would want to invade Norway?
Granted the women seem to all have big hooters, but it gets too cold there.

its legal because a third of americans are die hard republicans, and they vote in repblican senators and house members... to change an amendment u need about two thirds vote... so they dont have enough

i think this is right...

if some one broke into your home what would you shoot them with?

I'd never own a gun myself, but I understand that someone can have a valid, civil desire to own one. So I believe that they do not have to be illegal.

Strictly regulated, though? Absolutely. I think more research and regulation needs to be done, so that every gun and every bullet can be traced to a store and buyer. I remember hearing that it's possible to get an idea about whether a particular bullet was fired by a particular gun, but that is was not an exact science, and could be easily altered with some nailfiling. I think this needs to be changed. Technology needs to be implemented to make things as traceable as possible.

http://www.nrablacklist.com/
This is an interesting link - check out just for kicks. The countries to which I have traveled where the populace does not carry weapons have been infinitely safer. If guns were not so readily available here, perhaps fewer people would have them. I'm no expert, I just choose to distance myself from them whenever possible - difficult to do when you live in a conceal/carry locale. I would like to think that fewer people bearing arms would make our society safer, but it may be too late to find that out. I don't like that whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing - it's a helluva lot easier to pull a trigger than to strangle someone. Again, I don't pretend to have an answer here. I think if our founding fathers were to rewrite the Constitution in this day and age, they may take out that "right to bear arms" stuff. I make a personal choice to not obtain firearms. Don't know if I'm safer or more vulnerable as a result. It's just a choice.

That site is absolutely absurd, to the point of being offensive. Aren't you the person on the "Why join the NRA" thread that claimed to be "anti-ignorance" and "anti-bias"?

On the very first page of that site (if you ignore the patronizing song that plays in the background) you'll see that they define semi-auto rifles as "military-style semi-automatic weapons -- lethal killing machines that can put 12 slugs in a cop's body in 2 seconds." I'm willing to bet that the makers of this site have never fired a firearm and have absolutely no clue what "semi-automatic" even means.

That's a pretty hefty claim. Are you able to back it up with any sort of evidence whatsoever, or are you just going on "intuition"?

Move? It's not likely to be a policy that will change, in Texas.

Yes, it is a choice. Make no mistake, guns are very possible of killing people and do so very well. However, suggesting that one type of gun "kills more people" or "is more dangerous" is really quite silly. The people that legally own fully-automatic weapons (ones that keep firing until you let go of the trigger) are not the problem. Hell, people that legally own supplies of dynamite are not the problem. Criminals are. Less than 1% of guns used in crimes even meet the criteria for an "assault weapon"*, so what exactly is legislation like the 94 "assault weapon" ban supposed to do, other than punish legal gun owners?

I totally agree with you, Boo. I don't understand the opposition to a 50caliber ban and these grounds. I own several rifles, myself, and enjoy target shooting and hunting. But I honestly do not understand why it is truly necessary for a hunter to kill his quarry with a Bushmaster AR-15. Its almost beyond logic. One bullet will likely kill a deer, dove or whatever your chosen game is ... no need for 250 in a second. No need for depleted uranium coke-bottle shells either ... become a better shot. Drop a deer with a .22 and then I'll let you play with a 50cal, otherwise shut the heck up in my opinion.

Well, I agree with SOME of your points, Boo...